Demographic characteristics of participants in the 2005 and 2006 Population surveys (Study 1) and the “Natural Exposure” advertising evaluation study (Study 2)
| Study 1 population survey* | Study 2 “Natural Exposure” advertising evaluation† | ||||
| Sample characteristics | 2005 (n=587) (%) | 2006 (n=583) (%) | Total sample (n=448) (%) | Exposed to pack warnings (n=279) (%) | Not exposed to pack warnings (n=169) (%) |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 53.8 | 54.0 | 36.2 | 34.4 | 39.1 |
| Female | 46.2 | 46.0 | 63.8 | 65.6 | 60.9 |
| Age | |||||
| 18–29 years | 30.8 | 32.4 | 7.6 | 9.0 | 5.3 |
| 30–49 years | 45.4 | 44.6 | 56.3 | 59.5 | 50.9 |
| 50+ years | 23.8 | 23.0 | 36.2 | 31.5 | 43.8 |
| Highest level of education | |||||
| Not finished secondary | 32.2 | 29.6 | NA | NA | NA |
| Finished secondary/some tertiary | 42.0 | 41.8 | NA | NA | NA |
| Finished tertiary | 25.4 | 28.4 | NA | NA | NA |
| Socioeconomic status | |||||
| High disadvantage | 39.1 | 36.0 | 51.3 | 52.0 | 50.3 |
| Moderate disadvantage | 43.4 | 43.1 | 33.3 | 33.7 | 32.5 |
| Low disadvantage | 17.5 | 20.9 | 15.4 | 14.3 | 17.2 |
| Daily cigarette consumption‡ | |||||
| Low (≤10 cigs per day) | 45.7 | 49.0 | 28.8 | 31.2 | 24.9 |
| Medium (11–20 cigs per day) | 30.0 | 26.3 | 47.8 | 49.1 | 45.6 |
| High (≥21 cigs per day) | 14.6 | 14.4 | 23.4 | 19.7 | 29.6 |
| Stage-of-change | |||||
| Precontemplator | 60.3 | 60.4 | 38.8 | 33.3 | 47.9 |
| Contemplator | 24.2 | 21.6 | 40.4 | 43.7 | 34.9 |
| Preparer | 15.5 | 18.0 | 20.8 | 22.9 | 17.2 |
↵* Weighted by age and sex according to census data for the Victorian population in 2006.
↵† In this study, respondents were recruited to reflect the target audience of anti-smoking campaigns in Australia, which is the demographic subgroup with the highest prevalence of smoking (18–44-year-olds who are of lower socioeconomic status).
↵‡ In 2005, daily cigarette consumption data were missing for 57 (9.7%) respondents. In 2006, data were missing for 60 (10.3%) respondents.
Note. Because of rounding, percentages may not add up to 100. Data about respondents' highest level of education were not readily available for the “Natural Exposure” advertising evaluation study.